Compliance Stuff

District courts have increasingly asserted the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone during the litigation, even those not a party to a lawsuit, through a procedural tool called  universal injunctions . A federal judge in Texas, for example, issued a preliminary injunction nine years ago to  block the 2016 overtime rule nationwide . Such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” the Supreme Court ruled on June 27 in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In  Trump v. CASA Inc. , the court granted the federal government’s applications to partially stay injunctions entered by lower courts in birthright citizenship cases. The court stated that “partial stays will cause no harm to respondents because they will remain protected by the preliminary injunctions to the extent necessary and appropriate to afford them complete relief.” In addition, the court has lifted the prohibition on...

In a decision issued on June 27, 2025,  Trump v. CASA, Inc . (a 6-3 ruling), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal District Courts lack authority to grant universal injunctions. In  CASA , the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, and the Western District of Washington had previously issued universal preliminary injunctions against the January 20, 2025 Executive Order ending birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to mothers either illegally in the country or visiting on a temporary basis and whose father is not a United States citizen or permanent legal resident (“the EO”) . The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the legality of the EO, but its ruling lifts the preliminary injunctions except as to the parties, paving the way for the Trump administration to implement the EO otherwise, at least for the time being. Prior to  CASA , the national trend was for the lower federal courts to issue universal (or “natio...

"Reverse discrimination," ADA, religion, and nationwide injunctions. The 2024-25 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is over. Two decisions at the end of the term directly addressed employment law issues, and two others will have an indirect impact on employers. Here is what you need to know: No. 1: Expect more “reverse discrimination” claims.  In  Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services , a straight woman alleged that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted , in both cases because she was not gay. Colin Finnegan of our Kansas City Office has more details about the Court’s decision  here . Before the SCOTUS decision was issued, a number of circuits were requiring plaintiffs in Title VII “reverse discrimination” cases to prove more than plaintiffs in “traditional discrimination” cases. Specifically, the “reverse discrimination” plaintiff had to show, in addition to the usual, that there were background circumstances indicating that the defendant was the “unusual emplo...

  The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide a landmark case that could significantly limit the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions – a move that could have a profound impact on the workplace. Injunctions are court orders that tell the parties to either start or stop doing something, and when issued nationwide, they have stalled employment policy for both Republican and Democrat administrations over the last decade . While the underlying case concerns the Trump administration’s move to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment right to birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide only whether federal district courts have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the executive order while the lawsuits are pending . The ruling could carry broad implications, especially for employers who’ve been caught in the crossfire of sweeping federal policies halted (or enforced) through coast-to-coast injunctions over the past decade. Here’s what yo...

  President Donald Trump is just 21 days into his second term in office, but you might already be struggling to keep up with the number of changes and policy shifts coming from the new administration. While new presidents are typically judged based on their actions in their first 100 days, Trump’s whirlwind first three weeks warrant taking a pause to make sure you’re caught up on all the changes impacting key workplace issues. Major policy shifts have already affected immigration, DEI programs, equal employment opportunity, labor relations, and artificial intelligence. Here’s your 21-day recap: 1. Immigration What happened?  President Trump  took swift immigration action , signing 10 executive orders relating to immigration policy on day one. Among other things, those orders  declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border ,  reinstated the "remain in Mexico" policy and terminated the asylum-related mobile app , and  designated Mexican criminal car...

Whoa, Nelly! It's a stampede! After President Trump took office on Monday, he lost no time in undoing as much as he could from not only the Biden Administration, but also going all the way back to the days of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Here is a recap of the most significant, or potentially significant employment-related actions he took as of Thursday evening. (I have no doubt that this post will be out of date before it's published.) HOT ISSUES RTO! ASAP!  He ordered  all federal workers back to the office  (allowing for limited exceptions). This doesn't affect the private sector, but I suspect it will accelerate the trend back toward in-person work everywhere. Brrrrrr!  H e imposed  a freeze (really, a suspension) of pending regulations  (1) issued before he took office and (2) that have not yet been published in the  Federal Register , so that his people could review them and determine whether they should go forward. Limited exceptions apply....